OTF

Obviously, but if they can't even acknowledge the most patently obvious errors that are by far the biggest talking points in three or four games then it's a solid indicator for their behind the scenes attitude and what will go on behind closed doors.

Agree 100% Even when they get it wrong you at least can understand why they ruled a particular way. There should be nothing to hide.

His response was measured and reflective rather than angry simply because he knows there's nothing to gain from anger, except to deal with it and move on from it if that's how you work. The Premier League site has no mention whatsoever of any of the drama, so it's pretty clear that their standard response of don't acknowledge the problem will be what we get, with no visibility of whether there has been or will be any action taken behind the scenes to address the various inexplicably erroneous decisions that affected so many results.

Rugby league uses them pretty well in Australia. The captain of each team gets to make one challenge per match to an on-field decision. They have to challange immediately after the play. If their challenge is upheld they retain the ability to make a challenge later in the game, if the original decision stands they lose their challenge and can make no more. If the video footage is not conclusive enough the original call remains and the captain retains their challenge. It still doesn't mean that the VAR (called 'the bunker' in league) gets everything right, but for the most part they do. It's also never a case of the VAR referring the decision back to the on-field ref by getting them to watch certain footage. The decision is made by the bunker and relayed to the onfield ref as well as on the big-screen.

I really dislike that he is so heavily involved in the punditry that we get served up in Australia. One of the last things you want to see after being dudded by a horrible refereeing decision is his face, regardless of what he is saying.

Steve Marshall Barnes' dyslexia is no trivial matter.

The reverse angle of this is vastly more clear that Willock is shoved also, and that does not appear to have been presented to the referee for review.

Jeez, clear double standards at play.

I haven't seen that one as yet but I'm not at all surprised. The FA are fucking hopeless at responding to and taking action against their own shortcomings, which these erroneous decisions must absolutely fall in the remit of. They'll say nothing and do nothing as none of the media darlings have been harmed.

The VAR decision in our game was worse IMO, but I'd be equally annoyed about that decision if I supported West Ham.

Well said. I really want to see him for a full game to get a read on his defensive positioning and contribution.

And if Anderson is to earn a starting spot it would be over Willock and then we'd potentially have quite a balanced midfield three with the spark from both Bruno and Anderson. A legitimate exciting prospect.

Poor VAR decision in the West Ham game also denying a goal for incidental contact after Mendy dived at the feet of Bowen to punch the ball clear.

It's a tough one because it's not patently clear the differences in the instructions and intended positioning for Willock, Longstaff and Joelinton. For me it would still be Longstaff as he wants too much time on the ball where-as Anderson's strength seems to be his close control and sharp interplay. Positionally that means Willock maybhave to sit back a bit with Joelinton best with a free-roaming pass.

5 goals Brentford, a hat-trick from Toney.

Absolutely, looks ready to play a bigger part.

I would ask how we have not scored here but technically we did score, albeit through an own goal. Robbed.

Paraphrased. Craig: "The referee made a mistake when looking at the monitor because no foul was committed against their keeper" Also Craig: "The VAR has to advise the ref to have a look at the foul against their keeper"

Firstly, you're hilarious. Secondly the VAR can also see why Willock has collided with the keeper and therefore determine that he hasn't committed a foul. You yourself believe this to be the case so why would the VAR ever suggest the ref should have a look at it? You're not making any sense.

It's a fascinating argument deciding precisely how we've been fucked over, like it makes any difference. Whether the ref asked for it to be reviewed or whether the VAR suggested that the ref got it wrong and should have another look it doesn't matter. The VAR was in the best position to see that Willock was shoved and therefore had not fouled the keeper of his own volition so should have said nothing/informed the ref that the goal should stand.

Great ball Isak and a good shot from Willock

Pope 🥰

Only if you're amongst the 'big 6' and have had your manager wildly gesticulating down the sidelines.

Only if there is a clear and obvious error, which there wasn't, ergo VAR was obliged to do nothing.

Think they look at all goals or red card incidents regardless of the referee and then are supposed to interject should there be a clean and obvious error, exactly like what we didn't see there.